Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[matttyl]

What's a fair 2014 rookie pick to trade for him? #5ish?

I don't know why you would do that. The 5 pick now will allow you to pick someone you can use right now. Michael's situation is still a holad and wait. He likely isn't going to make a fantasy impact for at least another season and a half.

I would expect the Hawks to ride Lynch and his contract into the ground and use him up and, assuming they continue their success, start phasing Michael in, in earnest, about half way through NEXT season, let Lynch walk when the contract is up and then go with Michael in '16.

I like the idea of buying Michael but only if you are like the Hawks and have that luxury. Not as a promise for this upcoming season.

I'm not sure the #5 rookie pick will help me this year either. How about the #8, then?

 

[humpback]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

Huh?

 

[Neofight]

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Do you have a link to this?

John Schneider on Christine Michael: Hes our kind of runner

Why would a team that already has All-Pro Marshawn Lynch and selected complementary back Robert Turbinin the fourth round of last years NFL Draft make another running back its top draft choice this year?

General manager John Schneider supplied the bottom-line answer after the Seahawks did just that by taking Texas A&Ms Christine Michael in the second round last Friday: He was the top-rated player on our board.

But the broader explanation is that the more the Seahawks saw of the 221-pound Michael whose first name is pronounced kristin the more they liked him.

He posted the top marks among the running backs at the NFL Scouting Combine in the vertical leap (43 inches) and cone (6.69 seconds) and shuttle (4.02 seconds) drills. He was second in the broad jump (10 feet, 5 inches) and third in the bench press (27 reps with 225 pounds). His time of 4.43 second in the 40-yard dash ranked ninth, but only one of the eight faster backs weighed more than 210 pounds and his time was second-best among the backs the Seahawks would have considered with what ended up being the 62nd pick overall.

....

The kicker is that Seattle went after this guy based on his crazy numbers (which back up his tape), to have him compete directly with Marshawn Lynch... in 2014. Good on them.

There's two ways to interpret Schneider's statement:

1. He was the top rated player on their board [that was still available] when they were OTC.

2. He was the top rated player on their board (their #1 ranked player in the entire draft).

Which seems more likely?

You seem to be trying to turn it into the second option. Does that seem realistic to you?

ETA: Saying he was the No. 1 player on their board when they picked is obvious, since they....you know...picked him when they were OTC. So that statement would be quite meaningless, unless you were trying to say he was their #1 overall player (which once again doesn't seem all that realistic). If Seattle had the No. 1 overall pick, woul they have taken Michael? You seem to want to say "yes".

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall. These facts would be his measurables (Michaels combine numbers were through the roof), Seattle's reliance on the run (how many run first teams are left in the league?); Seattle's acquisitions prior to the draft (Avril and Bennett signed on back to back days following the acquisition of Harvin, to say nothing of the McD's and others- not bad); the release of Leon Washington, freeing up a spot at a position Seattle prizes very highly; the fact that Michael was actually brought in for a visit prior to the draft (how many other RB's did Seattle do this for?)... And let's not forget that no RB's were drafted in the first round, which worked tremendously in their favor on draft day. They were fairly giddy I imagine, knowing they had shored up other area's of need in the weeks prior to the draft and having the best athlete in the entire draft fall to them in the second round.

There was a ton of speculation on Seattle draft sites and local radio about the draft. Most astute observers agreed that the best back for Seattle's zone blocking scheme was Michael. For some it was obvious. The question was how long would they wait. Casual observers like tdmills seem to think they waited too long for their guy, others were surprised that they "reached" in the second round on a guy with "character concerns". People should realized by now that Seattle doesn't look at these concerns they way other franchises might (see Bruce Irvin in 2012, another reach).

I'm not a fan of the Seahawks per se, but I am a huge fan of the ownership, management and coaching: they do business right.

*to understand how Seattle values players and weighs their measurables, google "SPARQ a Fire" and read that article and others on fieldgulls.com. Apologies, but I'm too lazy to link it from my phone at the moment.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

 

[Neofight]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do). I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

 

[Neofight]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

 

[humpback]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

 

[Neofight]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

 

[Neofight]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward. Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

 

[humpback]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

 

[Neofight]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

I'm sorry, did I say it was a fact? Or did I merely sound confident in an opinion backed up with facts to support it?

 

[Gandalf]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

 

[Gandalf]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

 

[Neofight]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question (ETA: unless you are saying that player was Michael) - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

 

[Neofight]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence. The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

 

[Neofight]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

Have you seen Seattle's drafts under Carroll and Schneider? Take a look at those picks and let me know what you think. Schneider actually isn't much of a gambler, or he might have waited a bit longer in my mind.

 

[Gandalf]

It the number one player on a teams board is around just hanging there, I don't think you wait until the end of round 2. I do believe they like Michael a lot and am a current supporter of all things Michael. But don't think a team would just hang out and watch their 1 overall player without proactively trying to get him. Especially early in round 2.

 

[tdmills]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence. The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

You're dense, I'm done with this

 

[Neofight]

It the number one player on a teams board is around just hanging there, I don't think you wait until the end of round 2. I do believe they like Michael a lot and am a current supporter of all things Michael. But don't think a team would just hang out and watch their 1 overall player without proactively trying to get him. Especially early in round 2.

They sweated out Russell Wilson in round three after debating (according to Schneider and Carroll) about drafting him in round two. Again, few teams value RB as much as Seattle does. Michael had already scared some teams off due to character concerns and lack of volume. This wasn't much of a wait for a guy with his abilities.

 

[Neofight]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence. The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

You're dense, I'm done with this

You weren't done a while back?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence.The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

I edited my response to reflect that you may have been referring to Michaels.

Once again, I have no idea who they would have taken No. 1 overall, and you don't either.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? If so it seems odd that Michaels was used so sparingly - and I'm not saing that has any bearing whatsoever on his future value so lets not spin those wheels again. However, how was it a need pick if he wasn't needed? I'd say WR and TE was a positon of need on offense, much more so that RB (even if Harvin stayed healthy).

I would not argue if you were to say, they loved Michaels and he was there top rated RB in the draft. in that case, I could see trading back and taking a chance - but at the risk of beating a dead horse (probably way too late on that), I don't think there's anyway he was the top player overall on their draft board and you are misinterpreting that quote.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

Have you seen Seattle's drafts under Carroll and Schneider? Take a look at those picks and let me know what you think.Schneider actually isn't much of a gambler, or he might have waited a bit longer in my mind.

I think Schneider and his staff have done a wonderful job with the draft. In fact, I think he's so smart that I would say there's no way that he would be dumb enough to risk losing his top rated player just to give himself a chance he can strike gold in round 6. There is likely not anyone dumb enough to take that risk.

 

[humpback]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

I'm sorry, did I say it was a fact? Or did I merely sound confident in an opinion backed up with facts to support it?

You said "he was". What "facts" did you use to support it? There's a quote from the GM with no context given, and then you said the trade happened in March, which is completely incorrect.

 

[Neofight]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

I'm sorry, did I say it was a fact? Or did I merely sound confident in an opinion backed up with facts to support it?

You said "he was". What "facts" did you use to support it? There's a quote from the GM with no context given, and then you said the trade happened in March, which is completely incorrect.

Good god man, do I need to use the sarcasm emo on that? I was clearly messing with BST as he was doing a poor job with his fishing trip; I was jokingly referring to the Harvin trade and ignoring the in-draft trade he was referencing (while clearly not bringing any facts to the table himself). The facts I've presented are multiple: roster moves, positional openings, quotes, reference to SPARQ ratings (do yourself a favor and look at these), Seahawk draft track record and tendencies (with references to other presser quotes re those picks)... a pre-draft visit by Michael that went well by any account I've seen. Has anyone come up with another RB that had such a visit?

You are just too lazy to look at the work that's been done and laid out before you.

ETA: I can see how this idea would seem crazy to someone looking from a place of little knowledge of the current Seahawk regime and their draft history thus far. But imagine if they would have drafted an undersized pass rush specialist with serious character concerns at #15 overall in hopes of converting him to LEO, only to use him situationally (where he thrived) and then convert him to a LB in his second season, or a sub 5'11" QB "backup" in round three the following season with hopes of making him the face of the franchise?

That would be truly nuts.

 

[humpback]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

I'm sorry, did I say it was a fact? Or did I merely sound confident in an opinion backed up with facts to support it?

You said "he was". What "facts" did you use to support it? There's a quote from the GM with no context given, and then you said the trade happened in March, which is completely incorrect.

Good god man, do I need to use the sarcasm emo on that? I was clearly messing with BST as he was doing a poor job with his fishing trip; I was jokingly referring to the Harvin trade and ignoring the in-draft trade he was referencing (while clearly not bringing any facts to the table himself).The facts I've presented are multiple: roster moves, positional openings, quotes, reference to SPARQ ratings (do yourself a favor and look at these), Seahawk draft track record and tendencies (with references to other presser quotes re those picks)... a pre-draft visit by Michael that went well by any account I've seen. Has anyone come up with another RB that had such a visit?

You are just too lazy to look at the work that's been done and laid out before you.

 

[Neofight]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

I love absolutist thought.

How is yours any different?

Because I admit I could be wrong, and don't use phrases like "no way, as in zero chance".Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were serious with that question.

You posted that he was the #1 overall player on their board as if it were a fact, and we have no idea if it is or not.

I'm sorry, did I say it was a fact? Or did I merely sound confident in an opinion backed up with facts to support it?

You said "he was". What "facts" did you use to support it? There's a quote from the GM with no context given, and then you said the trade happened in March, which is completely incorrect.

Good god man, do I need to use the sarcasm emo on that? I was clearly messing with BST as he was doing a poor job with his fishing trip; I was jokingly referring to the Harvin trade and ignoring the in-draft trade he was referencing (while clearly not bringing any facts to the table himself).The facts I've presented are multiple: roster moves, positional openings, quotes, reference to SPARQ ratings (do yourself a favor and look at these), Seahawk draft track record and tendencies (with references to other presser quotes re those picks)... a pre-draft visit by Michael that went well by any account I've seen. Has anyone come up with another RB that had such a visit?

You are just too lazy to look at the work that's been done and laid out before you.

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

 

[humpback]

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?

You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

I'm not laughing at the Michael pick, I'm laughing at your absurd posts.

I love how condescending and snarky you are, yet not even the most ardent Michael supporters agree with you. I'm sure because you think you're smarter than everyone else that's okay with you, but most times it isn't "everyone else" who is crazy.

You honestly believe that drafting Irvin and Wilson has any relevance to whether or not they thought Michael was the best player in the draft?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?

You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

I'm not laughing at the Michael pick, I'm laughing at your absurd posts. I love how condescending and snarky you are, yet not even the most ardent Michael supporters agree with you. I'm sure because you think you're smarter than everyone else that's okay with you, but most times it isn't "everyone else" who is crazy.

You honestly believe that drafting Irvin and Wilson has any relevance to whether or not they though Michael was the best player in the draft?

But he can drop acronyms and read an online article. Next best thing to actually being in the Seattle war room itself...

 

[Neofight]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence.The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

I edited my response to reflect that you may have been referring to Michaels.

Once again, I have no idea who they would have taken No. 1 overall, and you don't either.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? If so it seems odd that Michaels was used so sparingly - and I'm not saing that has any bearing whatsoever on his future value so lets not spin those wheels again. However, how was it a need pick if he wasn't needed? I'd say WR and TE was a positon of need on offense, much more so that RB (even if Harvin stayed healthy).

I would not argue if you were to say, they loved Michaels and he was there top rated RB in the draft. in that case, I could see trading back and taking a chance - but at the risk of beating a dead horse (probably way too late on that), I don't think there's anyway he was the top player overall on their draft board and you are misinterpreting that quote.

Missed this post but it's worth a follow up. Was RB an area of need for Seattle? Yes, as much as any position at draft time. Truly, Seattle was stacked coming in after the FA season they had post-combine. By most accounts they were the deepest team in the league going into the draft and that didn't change after the draft. This depth is what prompted Schneider to comment that the 2013 draft was really geared towards 2014 (a point most in this thread fail to recognize). They didn't have a need for any starters at all, though the injuries to the O-line early in the season tested their depth at that position. By most accounts their rookie O-linemen (one an UFA) performed admirably in relief and the weaker links were guys like McQuistan and Carpenter. So I suppose you could say offensive line was a position of greater need, but that would be completely in retrospect and a bit revisionist.

At WR they had Percy Harvin and a healthy Sidney Rice as #1 and #2, to go along with a generally criminally underestimated (by me as well, early in the season) trio of Tate, Baldwin and Kearse. That's a top 10 WR corps on paper. Throw in a special teams ace like Lockette and you have a deep core before injuries... though after the draft. Factor in the money tied up at WR and they weren't going to draft a stud if they were at #1overall in the last draft.

TE maybe, but they love Miller and Willson, so you are basically weighing drafting a third TE versus a third RB.

The reason why Michael wasn't used more this season has been belabored more than any other point in this thread. It's safe to say they didn't need him.

And let me beat another horse from head to hock: Seattle is a run first team.

 

[Neofight]

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?

You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

I'm not laughing at the Michael pick, I'm laughing at your absurd posts. I love how condescending and snarky you are, yet not even the most ardent Michael supporters agree with you. I'm sure because you think you're smarter than everyone else that's okay with you, but most times it isn't "everyone else" who is crazy.

You honestly believe that drafting Irvin and Wilson has any relevance to whether or not they thought Michael was the best player in the draft?

I honestly believe that you take offense easily, that you feel the need to make assumptions which you can't prove to support your cause because you can't rely on evidence, and you assign words and ideas which I've clearly pointed out aren't mine. The exercise of pointing out the Irvin and Wilson picks was to point out that the Seahawks evaluate talent just a bit differently than most. And it was meant, more to the point, to remind you of how outlandish some thought their line of thinking was when they made those picks. The words used by some in assessing those two in particular closely mirror your words here.

I'm not smart. I know what I know and try to remain aware of what I don't. Try that sometime.

 

[Neofight]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

Have you seen Seattle's drafts under Carroll and Schneider? Take a look at those picks and let me know what you think.Schneider actually isn't much of a gambler, or he might have waited a bit longer in my mind.

I think Schneider and his staff have done a wonderful job with the draft. In fact, I think he's so smart that I would say there's no way that he would be dumb enough to risk losing his top rated player just to give himself a chance he can strike gold in round 6. There is likely not anyone dumb enough to take that risk.

Why would one player make or break the team? Or even a draft for that matter? Plenty of teams don't get their highest rated overall player on the board yet manage to have great drafts. Meanwhile, getting extra picks is usually a great idea, particularly if you are buying in a market where the commodity you value extremely high is devalued by most. Last years draft was the first in how long that a RB didn't go in the first round?...I'm guessing Schneider is smart enough to know that. And to take advantage accordingly.

 

[humpback]

Missed this post but it's worth a follow up.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? Yes, as much as any position at draft time. Truly, Seattle was stacked coming in after the FA season they had post-combine. By most accounts they were the deepest team in the league going into the draft and that didn't change after the draft. This depth is what prompted Schneider to comment that the 2013 draft was really geared towards 2014 (a point most in this thread fail to recognize). They didn't have a need for any starters at all, though the injuries to the O-line early in the season tested their depth at that position. By most accounts their rookie O-linemen (one an UFA) performed admirably in relief and the weaker links were guys like McQuistan and Carpenter. So I suppose you could say offensive line was a position of greater need, but that would be completely in retrospect and a bit revisionist.

At WR they had Percy Harvin and a healthy Sidney Rice as #1 and #2, to go along with a generally criminally underestimated (by me as well, early in the season) trio of Tate, Baldwin and Kearse. That's a top 10 WR corps on paper. Throw in a special teams ace like Lockette and you have a deep core before injuries... though after the draft. Factor in the money tied up at WR and they weren't going to draft a stud if they were at #1overall in the last draft.

TE maybe, but they love Miller and Wilson, so you are basically weighing drafting a third TE versus a third RB.

The reason why Michael wasn't used more this season has been belabored more than any other point in this thread. It's safe to say they didn't need him.

And let me beat another horse from head to hock: Seattle is a run first team.

What you fail to recognize is that Schneider made that comment after the season, and he also specifically said Michael had a tough time because Turbin "stepped up". What do you expect him to say about a draft class that didn't contribute much in their first season?

They drafted Willson in the 5th round of that draft, although you probably believe that they already knew they were going to do that when deciding what to do with their 2nd round pick.

 

[Neofight]

Missed this post but it's worth a follow up.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? Yes, as much as any position at draft time. Truly, Seattle was stacked coming in after the FA season they had post-combine. By most accounts they were the deepest team in the league going into the draft and that didn't change after the draft. This depth is what prompted Schneider to comment that the 2013 draft was really geared towards 2014 (a point most in this thread fail to recognize). They didn't have a need for any starters at all, though the injuries to the O-line early in the season tested their depth at that position. By most accounts their rookie O-linemen (one an UFA) performed admirably in relief and the weaker links were guys like McQuistan and Carpenter. So I suppose you could say offensive line was a position of greater need, but that would be completely in retrospect and a bit revisionist.

At WR they had Percy Harvin and a healthy Sidney Rice as #1 and #2, to go along with a generally criminally underestimated (by me as well, early in the season) trio of Tate, Baldwin and Kearse. That's a top 10 WR corps on paper. Throw in a special teams ace like Lockette and you have a deep core before injuries... though after the draft. Factor in the money tied up at WR and they weren't going to draft a stud if they were at #1overall in the last draft.

TE maybe, but they love Miller and Wilson, so you are basically weighing drafting a third TE versus a third RB.

The reason why Michael wasn't used more this season has been belabored more than any other point in this thread. It's safe to say they didn't need him.

And let me beat another horse from head to hock: Seattle is a run first team.

What you fail to recognize is that Schneider made that comment after the season, and he also specifically said Michael had a tough time because Turbin "stepped up". What do you expect him to say about a draft class that didn't contribute much in their first season?They drafted Willson in the 5th round of that draft, although you probably believe that they already knew they were going to do that when deciding what to do with their 2nd round pick.

Did I say Schneider said this after the draft last year? I know when he said it and it echoed what he and Pete Carroll did say immediately after the 2013 draft: these guys will have a hard time getting on the field this year, barring injury. These statements are painfully obvious (and honest) given the Seahawks depth. If you disagree with those sentiments please feel free to explain.Regarding Willson, I was just pointing out that they had him rated probably higher than most given that he didn't do much behind McDonald at Rice. Though they weren't going to overdraft at TE when McCoy was still healthy.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

Have you seen Seattle's drafts under Carroll and Schneider? Take a look at those picks and let me know what you think.Schneider actually isn't much of a gambler, or he might have waited a bit longer in my mind.

I think Schneider and his staff have done a wonderful job with the draft. In fact, I think he's so smart that I would say there's no way that he would be dumb enough to risk losing his top rated player just to give himself a chance he can strike gold in round 6. There is likely not anyone dumb enough to take that risk.

Why would one player make or break the team? Or even a draft for that matter? Plenty of teams don't get their highest rated overall player on the board yet manage to have great drafts. Meanwhile, getting extra picks is usually a great idea, particularly if you are buying in a market where the commodity you value extremely high is devalued by most. Last years draft was the first in how long that a RB didn't go in the first round?...I'm guessing Schneider is smart enough to know that. And to take advantage accordingly.

How many teams have the opportunity to draft their overall highest rated player past the mid-point of Round 2? How many teams do you think would rather grab an extra 6th round draft pick (but risk losing that player) instead of just taking that player?

Considering two other RBs were selected after Seattle traded down the commodity they valued extremely high wasn't as devalued by most as they thought. Good thing two respected franchises preferred a different variant of that commodity instead.

I'll bow out of this debate for now. You're obviously convinced that you are interpreting a somewhat ambiguous quote the correct way, even though it's fairly obvious to most that you are incorrect based on context - especially when you consider the team you are praising so effusively could have made a terrible mistake by trading down, if you're interpretation was correct.

 

[humpback]

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?

You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

I'm not laughing at the Michael pick, I'm laughing at your absurd posts. I love how condescending and snarky you are, yet not even the most ardent Michael supporters agree with you. I'm sure because you think you're smarter than everyone else that's okay with you, but most times it isn't "everyone else" who is crazy.

You honestly believe that drafting Irvin and Wilson has any relevance to whether or not they thought Michael was the best player in the draft?

I honestly believe that you take offense easily, that you feel the need to make assumptions which you can't prove to support your cause because you can't rely on evidence, and you assign words and ideas which I've clearly pointed out aren't mine.The exercise of pointing out the Irvin and Wilson picks was to point out that the Seahawks evaluate talent just a bit differently than most. And it was meant, more to the point, to remind you of how outlandish some thought their line of thinking was when they made those picks. The words used by some in assessing those two in particular closely mirror your words here.

I'm not smart. I know what I know and try to remain aware of what I don't. Try that sometime.

Not at all, just pointing out that you've been acting pretty toolish in here. You're the one making giant leaps which defy reason so it should follow that you should be the one to have to prove or support them. I'm sure you think you have, but you really haven't.

Again, Irvin and Wilson have zero bearing on the discussion of whether they felt Michael was the best player in the draft. Who cares if some people thought those were outlandish picks? We're not talking about whether they viewed Michael as the best RB in the draft or higher than every other team, we're talking about whether he was their #1 overall player. What they did with other players in other rounds of other drafts in other situations provides absolutely no insight into that. Zero. Nada.

Nice finishing touch- just comes naturally for you I guess.

 

[Sweet Love]

Where's Captain Phillips? They are high-jacking this mother!

 

[werdnoynek]

Seems to me that Neo is putting out more truth in the last page than there was in the first 20. Keep on keepin on.

 

[Neofight]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

This is interesting.Why and, more importantly, how? What is your perception of their need to trade up for a RB in a draft where RB's didn't go in the first round in a league where the position has been devalued by a majority of teams?

And what do they trade to get back into the first?

On the flipside, if Michael was the No. 1 overall player on their board, would they really take the chance on trading down just to land an extra 5th and 6th round pick (a draft position that rarely pays dividens)?

If you are doing a risk/cost benefit analysis, would the risk of losing your highest rated overall player (which would be a steal in mid to late round 2) worth the benefit of adding two camp bodies (or perhaps hidden gems in a best case scenario)?

That seems like a real dubious position to take.

Have you seen Seattle's drafts under Carroll and Schneider? Take a look at those picks and let me know what you think.Schneider actually isn't much of a gambler, or he might have waited a bit longer in my mind.

I think Schneider and his staff have done a wonderful job with the draft. In fact, I think he's so smart that I would say there's no way that he would be dumb enough to risk losing his top rated player just to give himself a chance he can strike gold in round 6. There is likely not anyone dumb enough to take that risk.

Why would one player make or break the team? Or even a draft for that matter? Plenty of teams don't get their highest rated overall player on the board yet manage to have great drafts. Meanwhile, getting extra picks is usually a great idea, particularly if you are buying in a market where the commodity you value extremely high is devalued by most. Last years draft was the first in how long that a RB didn't go in the first round?...I'm guessing Schneider is smart enough to know that. And to take advantage accordingly.

How many teams have the opportunity to draft their overall highest rated player past the mid-point of Round 2? How many teams do you think would rather grab an extra 6th round draft pick (but risk losing that player) instead of just taking that player?

Considering two other RBs were selected after Seattle traded down the commodity they valued extremely high wasn't as devalued by most as they thought. Good thing two respected franchises preferred a different variant of that commodity instead.

I'll bow out of this debate for now. You're obviously convinced that you are interpreting a somewhat ambiguous quote the correct way, even though it's fairly obvious to most that you are incorrect based on context - especially when you consider the team you are praising so effusively could have made a terrible mistake by trading down, if you're interpretation was correct.

Fair enough. I'm still curious to hear what pick(s) would have made more sense for this team in your hypothetical. No doubt I could be way off, but I generally find Schneider to be very straightforward in his interviews and analysis that he shares. He has repeatedly referred to Michael as the best athlete in that draft.

I think the greater point here is that most want to assume that these evaluations happen in a vacuum, and boards are really very similar from team to team. That's just not very likely given the difference in individual philosophies and analysis, let alone positional needs and the pressures faced by regimes that might not have a long leash from their respective owners. It gets complicated. But sometimes it can be pretty simple too. They drafted a position of need (had an opening) to compete with Marshawn Lynch for the starting RB position. That just wasn't going to happen this year.

I'm guessing Seattle would have loved a guy like Dion Jordan too. Could they have molded him into a sack specialist at LEO, would he have fit in with the depth on their D-line, would he have played on that team at all? Hard to say, but we do know he was picked number 3 overall amid much hype and then struggled through a mediocre season and is not projecting as a starter in 2014 according to reports out off Miami.

Which is why your hypothetical is so difficult to answer. Miami got a guy at 3 that they coveted and who had serious measurables and tape. The Seahawks got a guy at 62 that they coveted based on his ability, both measured and viewed. So people think that it's impossible they could have had him at the top of their board; his measurables and pedigree say otherwise. So why not him? Because it doesn't fit somebody else's concept of where they should be drafting him. I've seen enough of Schneider and Carroll to know they don't factor that in and have plenty of leash afforded them by Allen. Add in the evidence of their previous drafts and it makes even more sense.

 

[Neofight]

Did you laugh at the Irvin and Wilson picks also?

You've shown nothing to indicate you have a read on this. Is that a comfort, perhaps eliciting laughter?

I'm not laughing at the Michael pick, I'm laughing at your absurd posts. I love how condescending and snarky you are, yet not even the most ardent Michael supporters agree with you. I'm sure because you think you're smarter than everyone else that's okay with you, but most times it isn't "everyone else" who is crazy.

You honestly believe that drafting Irvin and Wilson has any relevance to whether or not they thought Michael was the best player in the draft?

I honestly believe that you take offense easily, that you feel the need to make assumptions which you can't prove to support your cause because you can't rely on evidence, and you assign words and ideas which I've clearly pointed out aren't mine.The exercise of pointing out the Irvin and Wilson picks was to point out that the Seahawks evaluate talent just a bit differently than most. And it was meant, more to the point, to remind you of how outlandish some thought their line of thinking was when they made those picks. The words used by some in assessing those two in particular closely mirror your words here.

I'm not smart. I know what I know and try to remain aware of what I don't. Try that sometime.

Not at all, just pointing out that you've been acting pretty toolish in here. You're the one making giant leaps which defy reason so it should follow that you should be the one to have to prove or support them. I'm sure you think you have, but you really haven't.Again, Irvin and Wilson have zero bearing on the discussion of whether they felt Michael was the best player in the draft. Who cares if some people thought those were outlandish picks? We're not talking about whether they viewed Michael as the best RB in the draft or higher than every other team, we're talking about whether he was their #1 overall player. What they did with other players in other rounds of other drafts in other situations provides absolutely no insight into that. Zero. Nada.

Nice finishing touch- just comes naturally for you I guess.

Absolutism and irony are a delectable combination.

 

[humpback]

Missed this post but it's worth a follow up.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? Yes, as much as any position at draft time. Truly, Seattle was stacked coming in after the FA season they had post-combine. By most accounts they were the deepest team in the league going into the draft and that didn't change after the draft. This depth is what prompted Schneider to comment that the 2013 draft was really geared towards 2014 (a point most in this thread fail to recognize). They didn't have a need for any starters at all, though the injuries to the O-line early in the season tested their depth at that position. By most accounts their rookie O-linemen (one an UFA) performed admirably in relief and the weaker links were guys like McQuistan and Carpenter. So I suppose you could say offensive line was a position of greater need, but that would be completely in retrospect and a bit revisionist.

At WR they had Percy Harvin and a healthy Sidney Rice as #1 and #2, to go along with a generally criminally underestimated (by me as well, early in the season) trio of Tate, Baldwin and Kearse. That's a top 10 WR corps on paper. Throw in a special teams ace like Lockette and you have a deep core before injuries... though after the draft. Factor in the money tied up at WR and they weren't going to draft a stud if they were at #1overall in the last draft.

TE maybe, but they love Miller and Wilson, so you are basically weighing drafting a third TE versus a third RB.

The reason why Michael wasn't used more this season has been belabored more than any other point in this thread. It's safe to say they didn't need him.

And let me beat another horse from head to hock: Seattle is a run first team.

What you fail to recognize is that Schneider made that comment after the season, and he also specifically said Michael had a tough time because Turbin "stepped up". What do you expect him to say about a draft class that didn't contribute much in their first season?They drafted Willson in the 5th round of that draft, although you probably believe that they already knew they were going to do that when deciding what to do with their 2nd round pick.

Did I say Schneider said this after the draft last year? I know when he said it and it echoed what he and Pete Carroll did say immediately after the 2013 draft: these guys will have a hard time getting on the field this year, barring injury. These statements are painfully obvious (and honest) given the Seahawks depth. If you disagree with those sentiments please feel free to explain.Regarding Willson, I was just pointing out that they had him rated probably higher than most given that he didn't do much behind McDonald at Rice. Though they weren't going to overdraft at TE when McCoy was still healthy.

No, you didn't- did most in this thread say that he didn't make that comment? The point is that it carries little to no weight when it comes after a season where they didn't do much. Of course he's going to say that, he isn't going to say they're busts.

Regarding Willson- let me know when you stop spinning, because that's not what you said, not that it would be relevant even if it was. You sure you don't want to use the "it was sarcasm" defense instead?

 

[humpback]

Absolutism and irony are a delectable combination.

Indeed.

 

[Neofight]

Missed this post but it's worth a follow up.

Was RB an area of need for Seattle? Yes, as much as any position at draft time. Truly, Seattle was stacked coming in after the FA season they had post-combine. By most accounts they were the deepest team in the league going into the draft and that didn't change after the draft. This depth is what prompted Schneider to comment that the 2013 draft was really geared towards 2014 (a point most in this thread fail to recognize). They didn't have a need for any starters at all, though the injuries to the O-line early in the season tested their depth at that position. By most accounts their rookie O-linemen (one an UFA) performed admirably in relief and the weaker links were guys like McQuistan and Carpenter. So I suppose you could say offensive line was a position of greater need, but that would be completely in retrospect and a bit revisionist.

At WR they had Percy Harvin and a healthy Sidney Rice as #1 and #2, to go along with a generally criminally underestimated (by me as well, early in the season) trio of Tate, Baldwin and Kearse. That's a top 10 WR corps on paper. Throw in a special teams ace like Lockette and you have a deep core before injuries... though after the draft. Factor in the money tied up at WR and they weren't going to draft a stud if they were at #1overall in the last draft.

TE maybe, but they love Miller and Wilson, so you are basically weighing drafting a third TE versus a third RB.

The reason why Michael wasn't used more this season has been belabored more than any other point in this thread. It's safe to say they didn't need him.

And let me beat another horse from head to hock: Seattle is a run first team.

What you fail to recognize is that Schneider made that comment after the season, and he also specifically said Michael had a tough time because Turbin "stepped up". What do you expect him to say about a draft class that didn't contribute much in their first season?They drafted Willson in the 5th round of that draft, although you probably believe that they already knew they were going to do that when deciding what to do with their 2nd round pick.

Did I say Schneider said this after the draft last year? I know when he said it and it echoed what he and Pete Carroll did say immediately after the 2013 draft: these guys will have a hard time getting on the field this year, barring injury. These statements are painfully obvious (and honest) given the Seahawks depth. If you disagree with those sentiments please feel free to explain.Regarding Willson, I was just pointing out that they had him rated probably higher than most given that he didn't do much behind McDonald at Rice. Though they weren't going to overdraft at TE when McCoy was still healthy.

No, you didn't- did most in this thread say that he didn't make that comment? The point is that it carries little to no weight when it comes after a season where they didn't do much. Of course he's going to say that, he isn't going to say they're busts. Carroll also said that it was going to be difficult forRegarding Willson- let me know when you stop spinning, because that's not what you said, not that it would be relevant even if it was. You sure you don't want to use the "it was sarcasm" defense instead?

They said the same things before the season as well. Carroll repeatedly said those guys would have a hard time finding PT, and Schneider consistently referred to Michael as the best athlete in the draft. Pretty clear here.What the hell is the spin? Willson was the third TE prior to McCoy going down. That was in late May. Now if you want to say Willson is better than McCoy, well then great, we might agree on something.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

And with that, we're off of the rails completely. There is no way, as in zero chance, that any RB in last year's class was the top overall player on any team's draft board.

Its exactly like the discussions with the faith based guys in the FFA.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If he was the number one player on the Seahawks board, then they would have traded up to get him. Not that it matters.

Bingo.

 

[Bamac]

Given the facts that were available at the time of the draft, I'd say he was the number one player on their board overall.

Thanks for the reply, but I have serious doubts about that. I think you are misinterpreting Schneider's statement in the context of the question he answered.

We'll disagree in that case. But this isn't some type of revisionist history on my part. This was being discussed openly in various places prior to the draft. It doesn't take much to put the pieces together if you just looked at the Seahawks transactions, assessed their areas of need and listened to what Schneider actually had to say prior to the draft. He wasn't tipping his hand, but he also isn't afraid to be candid when the right questions are asked (most radio guys don't ask the right questions but some, like Doug Farrar, almost always do).I don't view the quoted comment as revelation, but as confirmation. They had a real hardon for Michael, just as they did for Harvin.

I know this is a hypothetical that is tough to answer, but if the Seahawks had the No. 1 overall pick in the draft last year, and were not able to trade down, do you think they take Michael there?

I know it's easy to say "not if they thought they could wait until Round 2" - but in a vacuum where they were going strictly off their draft board would they take Michael?

I think they would absolutely trade down, but if they were somehow locked into that pick I'd guess they'd do something unconventional (according to the gurus and pundits who often know so little about individual team needs and/or assessments). I'd say they would go with the guy they had the highest SPARQ value assigned to in an area of need. The rest is pretty straight forward.Let me put it back to you this way: which other players do you see the Seahawks drafting there and why? Knowing what you know about their FO and previously controversial and questionable draft picks...

You've sidestepped the question - but I realize it's a difficult one to answer.

As to your question, I don't know who the Seahawks would have taken No. 1 overall, but I serioulsy doubt it would have been Michael. I still think you are incorrectly interpreting the answer to the question as to why Seattle picked a RB when they were OTC. "He was the top-rated player on our board", to most would imply "as we were OTC". But I guess we'll never really know.

We can just disagree.

I didn't sidestep your question at all. It's there in the bold type. I was just hoping you'd go look at the articles and do some due diligence. The answer was fairly obvious though, no? Christine Michael as a prospect with those metrics is better than any RB in last years draft, and this years as well, according to SPARQ (I believe, I'll need to confirm all the official measurements from this combine and plug them in). His tape backs up what you saw at the combine. RB was an area of need according to John Schneider and Pete Carroll (this is obvious by the pick, but was also stated emphatically by both in multiple pressers).

Is still love to hear your thoughts on other areas of need and the players who would be suitable at the 1.

Jerick McKinnon to the Hawks in the first. Lynch gets cut and the Hawks roll with an all-SPARQ backfield. Book it.

 

[cacksman]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/2/27/5451970/pete-carroll-says-christine-michael-has-most-breakout-potential-for

Easy to see the difference in the highlight video between Michael, Turbin, and Ware.

Also, it might be interesting for readers here to read what Hawks fans are thinking about Michael in the comments.